Sorry Donald, but your victory is the antithesis of Brexit.

Donald Trump winning the US Presidential election is the biggest political upset since, well, only June as it happens. A completely unexpected result, Trump's victory has been likened to the UK vote to leave the EU on June 23, not least by the man himself, who earlier this week described the possibility of him winning as "Brexit plus plus plus."

There's no doubting that both results gave the establishment a bloody nose, but the comparisons between the Donald's rise to the White House and Brexit have been massively overblown. In fact, putting aside the rejection of the status quo, the two are practically antithetical.

For starters, Trump's platform railed against free trade. He constantly denounced NAFTA, and threatened to pull out of the agreement if Canada and Mexico were unwilling to renegotiate it. On top of this, Trump also threatened an all-out trade war with China, suggesting the introduction of tariffs, the bringing of trade cases against the country at the WTO, and labelling it as a currency manipulator.

Compare and contrast those protectionist instincts with the Leave campaign's message on trade. The cornerstone of the Brexiteer's message was the ability, freed from the EU's common external tariff, to sign our own trade deals with countries across the globe. Campaign literature, both official and otherwise, was awash with statistics showing where the current growth was in the world, which emerging economies would be the powerhouses of the future, and how our share of exports with the rest of the world was increasing, whilst that into the EU was in decline. Trump sought to be elected in order to make trade with China as difficult as possible. We voted to leave the EU in order to make it easier.

This isolationism can be found elsewhere in Trump's policies too. The president-elect has described NATO as 'obsolete', and has suggested he would look at pulling the United States out of the agreement. Compare and contrast, once again, with the Leave campaign. On security, one of the main tenants of the Leave position was that the EU's expansionist policies, and plans for an EU army, threatened to undermine NATO. When Remain supporters suggested that peace in Europe since the second world war had been secured by the EU, leavers pointed out that this had much more to do with the North Atlantic alliance than Brussel's bureaucracy. A desire to ensure NATO is maintained as the strongest military alliance in the world, not weaken it exponentially by pulling out of the agreement, was a core part of the Leave position.

Even on immigration Trump and Brexit are worlds apart. Yes, there was a strong part of the leave campaign that wished to control immigration, but the key word there is control. No-one on the leave side advocated closing the borders completely, but rather sought to ensure that the level of immigration into the country was manageable. Moreover, in the wake of the referendum result, Leavers have been just as aghast as Remain supporters at May's refusal to guarantee the rights of EU citizens currently in the UK to remain here. How diametrically opposed is this to Trump's call to deport 11 million people and ban all Muslims from entering the United States? The equivalency is a spectacularly false one.

There is no doubt that both Brexit and Trump were unquestionably votes against the status quo. Both campaigns rightly tapped into an anger at the ruling orthodoxy that for too long had been ambivalent about the concerns of ordinary voters. But that, bar the occasional appearance of Nigel Farage, is all the two events have in common. Trump is a bigoted isolationist, advocating the very worst forms of protectionism. Brexit on the other hand, was always about looking beyond the parochial borders of the EU, and engaging fully with the world, pursuing a free trading, global agenda, working constructively with our friends and allies, both in Europe and beyond. Far from Brexit plus plus plus, Trump is Brexit minus minus minus.

Dear Democrats, by all means denounce Trump, but respect his voters.

In the wake of the UK's referendum on EU membership, one would be forgiven, reading Facebook and Twitter, for thinking that the sky had fallen in. The outpouring of grief was spectacular, and what was most disconcerting was the way Leave voters were labelled by those who had not gotten the desired outcome.

Stupid, ignorant, racist, backwards, bigoted... all characteristics assumed by Remain supporters to be possessed by those who disagreed with them. Whilst no-one is suggesting there wasn't a minority element who did indeed vote to Leave the EU for those reasons, the overwhelming majority voted to leave because of concerns about sovereignty and democracy, and to embrace a more outward, globally free trading Britain than the protectionist EU would allow.

It was incredibly disheartening to see vocal Remainers lump in the vast majority of Leave voters with the few bigots who happened to vote in the same way.

And so, this morning, against all expectations, Donald Trump has been elected President of the United States. There is no denying he is thoroughly unsuitable for the job. A megalomaniacal, misogynistic, vacuous human being. But I would implore my American friends, and indeed everyone else, not to assume that the majority of your country is as bigoted as your president.

There will of course be some voters who opted for Trump because they are racist. But not all. There will be some who opted for Trump because they are misogynistic. But not all. There will be some who opted for Trump because they are ignorant. But not all.

Do not despair and denounce your fellow countrymen who may not have voted the same way as you. Whilst I'm of the opinion that she would have been the lesser of two evils (though Gary Johnson would have gotten my vote), there's no denying that Hillary had some spectacular shortcomings of her own. The fact that both of these candidates were far from ideal is reflected in the lowest vote turnout since 2000, with 18 million fewer people going to the polls than in 2012.

Trump's election is ultimately a rejection of business as usual. It's a shame that that message could not have been attached to a more pleasant individual, but that is the message nonetheless. So I urge you not to chastise, belittle and condescend those that voted against you. Don't assume that just because someone voted for Trump that they themselves are as backwards as the man himself.

In your visceral reaction to the election result, don't lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of people are good, kind, and tolerant, regardless of whose name they might put a check mark next to. Alienating and belittling those who vote a different way to you only further entrenches division. The American Republic is designed so that it's democratic institutions act as a check on it's Commander in Chief. Work with your fellow countrymen, and practice the tolerance and humanity you preach.

Gary Johnson must be President

This article originally appeared on United Politics on 19/09/2016

“If someone had a gun to your head, would you vote for Hillary or Trump?”

“I’d let it go off.”

Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson’s only somewhat tongue-in-cheek answer to the question many Americans are mulling over echoes the views of a huge chunk of voters. This US presidential election has churned out the two of the worst candidates the country has ever seen, boasting favorability ratings of roughly -60% each.

And is it any surprise? Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been dogged by various controversies revolving around the FBI investigation into her emails. Although they proved her innocence, she did not survive well. She was portrayed as either incompetent, a liar, or both.

During her time as Secretary of State, Clinton used 8 different blackberries and 5 ipads. None of them could be found for inspection and this seems suspicious in these circumstances. Add to that the controversies surrounding the Clinton Foundation and the allegations of ‘pay to play’. It’s little wonder she is struggling.

Also, there is the general sense that Hillary believes that being President is somehow her entitlement. This only causes animosity amongst people.

Some of that ties into her declaration just a few days ago – now partially retracted – that half of Trump supporters constituted a ‘basket of deplorables’. She dismissed almost a quarter of the electorate as xenophobes. We witnessed how effective that kind of condescension of the disenfranchised was during the EU Referendum.

Recent health scare stories have hindered her credibility. No-one, bar the most ardent of Republicans, would begrudge her getting ill. She’s only human. But after first playing off the concerns about her health as a conspiracy, then claiming she collapsed due to heat exhaustion, it emerged that Clinton was in fact suffering from pneumonia.

The sheer amount of campaigning she managed despite her illness would be impressive had she acknowledged it immediately. But by dismissing it and then down-playing it, Clinton did nothing to alleviate the perception that she is fundamentally deceitful.

Even on policy, she’s not exactly warm and fuzzy. In terms of her approach to military interventions, Clinton would make some Republicans blush. In a campaign even at Dartmouth college last July, she said: “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m President, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

This is the sort of ridiculous, war-monging statement one would expect from Donald Trump.

Speaking of whom, where to begin? It’s difficult to tell whether the vitriol Trump has espoused are sincerely held beliefs or whether or not he just believes whipping up that kind of hatred, and playing into that kind of fear, represents his best bet at becoming Commander In Chief.

Because make no bones about it; Trump couldn’t care less about the plight of working class America. Much like Hillary, he just wants to be Mr President.

But what an appalling path to take to the White House. Besides being completely incoherent, the man has, in no particular order:

Advocated bombing the families of terrorists
Called for the deportation of 11 million people from the US
Suggested punishing doctors who perform abortions
Said that most Mexicans who cross the border are drug dealers, criminals and rapists, albeit with the caveat that some, he assumes, ‘are good people’

Throw in the litany of misogynistic remarks this nutter has uttered during the campaign, and it’s small wonder Americans are despairing at the choice before them.

Which is precisely where Gary Johnson comes in. He and his running mate, Bill Weld, are both former Republican governors who served in traditional Democrat states, getting re-elected with increased majorities. He’s running on a ticket of fiscal responsibility and social inclusion. He wants to cut taxes and legalise pot. What’s not to like?

But let’s leave policy to one side for the moment. The biggest difference between Johnson and the candidates put forth by the two main parties is that the guy is a decent human being.

He committed a rather sizeable gaffe last week, completely blanking when asked what he would do about the situation in Aleppo. But a subsequent interview later that day on The View (where he answered the Trump or Hilary question), and his official statement shortly afterwards, showed a humility and reasonableness that is completely missing from the other two candidates.

“This morning, I began my day by setting aside any doubt that I’m human. Yes, I understand the dynamics of the Syrian conflict — I talk about them every day. But hit with “What about Aleppo?”, I immediately was thinking about an acronym, not the Syrian conflict. I blanked. It happens, and it will happen again during the course of this campaign.

Can I name every city in Syria? No. Should I have identified Aleppo? Yes. Do I understand its significance? Yes.”

He explained the gaffe as just a momentary brain-freeze that everyone experiences, and he’s right. But equally he acknowledged that he should be held to a higher standard. There was no excuse for the error, no attempt to blame the media. Just an honest ‘mea culpa’.

This humility is a running theme with Johnson. Several times when discussing the principles that underpin his politics he can be heard saying the phrase ‘I could be wrong’. How many politicians do we hear saying that? There is surely no greater sign of intelligence than being able to admit when one has erred and change tack. That is precisely the kind of quality we wish to see in our leaders, rather than grandiose pig-headedness.

Throw in his policies on being pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-free trade, anti-regime change and military interventions, and wanting to make it as easy as possible for immigrants to acquire a work visa to enter the country, and there’s a strong thread of humanity that runs throughout his politics.

His campaign stands apart, too. Whilst Trump and Clinton’s campaigns consist mainly of slinging mud at each other, Johnson’s thus far has been overwhelmingly about his own policies, his own philosophy and what he can offer. It’s less “look how awful they are”, and more “here’s what I think we should be doing.”

Sure, he’s not perfect. But all this culminates in the sense that Gary Johnson wants to be President because he wants to serve his country, not because he just wants to be President.

And, gun to your head, doesn’t that make him the best choice for the job?